I'm a financial journalist and author with experience as a lawyer, speaker and entrepreneur. As a senior editor at Forbes, I have covered the broad range of topics that affect boomers as they approach retirement age. That means everything from financial strategies and investment scams to working and living better as we get older. My most recent book is Estate Planning Smarts -- a guide for baby boomers and their parents. If you have story ideas or tips, please e-mail me at: deborah [at] estateplanningsmarts [dot] com. You can also follow me on Twitter

In the long march towards marriage equality, the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision in Windsor v. U.S., overturning a key section in the federal Defense of Marriage act, was a milestone, but it does not end the contentious battle over same-sex marriage. Key issues left unresolved have become the subject of numerous lawsuits and legislative initiatives on the state level.

The Court in Windsor overturned the federal law that limited marriage to a man and a woman. It didn’t legalize same-sex marriage. Therefore states are still free to decide whether to allow these marriages or recognize those performed in other states. In at least 18 states, couples are now fighting over these issues and to secure benefits denied to them in a state that bans same-sex marriage.

Here’s a roundup of some other recent developments in the rapidly changing legal landscape.

More Marriages in More States

Marriage litigation in Nevada and Hawaii has already reached the federal court of appeals level. The Nevada case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, involves four couples denied marriage licenses in Nevada and four more couples married in California and Canada seeking recognition of those marriages in Nevada. The plaintiffs argue that Nevada’s civil union law, which grants marriage-like rights without being called marriage, is unconstitutional. Jackson v Abercrombie, the Hawaii case, challenges Hawaii’s same-sex marriage ban and the constitutionality of Hawaii’s civil union alternative. District courts ruled against both plaintiffs last year, and the Ninth Circuit put the cases on hold pending the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

A New Mexico judge ruled in August that it is unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and ordered the Santa Fe County clerk’s office to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Immediately, Santa Fe County and Doña Ana County began issuing marriage licenses. Soon after, the state’s 33 counties and county clerks asked the state’s Supreme Court to clarify whether local officials are required to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Six same-sex couples then filed a similar request. A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 23.

Taking matters into his own hands, D. Bruce Hanes, the Register of Wills in Montgomery County, Pa. on July 24 started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but on Sept. 12 a court put a stop to it. He plans to appeal that ruling.

Splitting up is an issue, too. The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral argument in November, on whether it will grant divorces to same-sex couples married in other states, even though Texas doesn’t recognize those marriages as valid. A favorable outcome in this case could pave the way to marriage equality in Texas.

Spouses With Benefits

The right to receive federal benefits as a spouse is also being widely litigated. In Obergefell v. Kasich, a federal district court in Cincinnati issued a temporary restraining order on July 22 to the Ohio registrar of death certificates not to record a death certificate for John Arthur, an Ohio resident, unless the death certificate showed his status as married and listed James Obergefell as his surviving spouse. The two men married in Maryland but live in Ohio. Arthur was alive at the time the case was filed, but suffers from ALS and is expected to die soon. Other parties have joined the case since July 22, asking for similar relief. Before this case, which is likely to be heard in December, Ohio specifically prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage.

On the heels of Obergefell, on July 29 a U.S. District Court held in Cozen O’Connor v. Tobits, that the profit-sharing plan of a Pennsylvania law firm, Cozen O’Conner, must treat a person who was a member of a same-sex Canadian marriage as a surviving spouse. The couple had lived in Illinois, which doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, but the court determined that under federal pension law, known as ERISA, the marriage would be recognized as valid. As a result, Jennifer Tobits, the surviving spouse of Sarah Ellyn Farley, had a right as a surviving spouse to a survivor’s annuity from Farley’s employer provided profit-sharing plan.

Common-law marriage, still on the books in the District of Columbia and a handful of states, allows courts to retroactively recognize couples as married. That’s an issue in a case filed In August by James Spellman, the surviving member of a couple that never married. He has asked the court to recognize his 22-year relationship with Michael Kelly as a common-law same-sex marriage. This would allow him to inherit a share of Mr. Kelly’s estate under District of Columbia law in spite of the fact that Kelly’s will did not provide for him.

This is the first case of its kind and unfortunately, the facts are shaky because Kelly’s state of residence is at issue. Spellman and Kelly owned two homes, one in Delaware and one in the District of Columbia. While both recognize same-sex marriage, only the District of Columbia recognizes common-law marriage.

This case is scheduled to be heard Oct. 31. The attorneys for the executors of Kelly’s will, which he failed to update to provide for Spellman, are likely to argue that the couple’s primary place of residence was Delaware.

Meanwhile, legislative efforts are being actively pursued in Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii and Pennsylvania. Same-sex marriage initiatives will probably be on the ballot in Oregon in 2014 and Nevada in 2016.

This patchwork of litigation and grass roots legislative campaigns will continue with fervor until Congress passes sweeping marriage equality legislation. In the midst of the current budget crisis, that certainly isn’t a priority.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.